Under the Spent Convictions scheme of the Commonwealth, it is allowable not to disclose some material convictions. Unauthorized use or distributions of convictions might be allowed for some small convictions. Less serious ones or even convictions incurred in foreign states. The conviction scheme is provided under the part VIIC of Crimes Act 1914. The scheme is specifically applicable for the spent convictions. It is also applicable where individual in question has been given some form of a pardon. In some cases, the conviction itself could have been squashed. Now an important point to be noticed in applying this to the current case is that it does not apply for the more serious convictions.
A conviction of more than 30 months for instance becomes a serious conviction. In the given case scenarios, Mr. James has spent a maximum of 60 months in prison, which is a serious conviction. Under the scheme, Mr. James has not received a pardon. Hence he is held as being guilty of the offense. The conviction furthermore must be considered as being spent. Only then the spent element applies to the case. In the case study, the individual was imprisoned for more than 30 months. He was not granted a pardon, and was not wrongly convicted as he had served his full sentencing.
A waiting period of two years is usually applicable in the case of a juvenile offender. Mr. James who was a chief engineer could not have been a juvenile offender either here. Therefore, based on all these factors, it could be said that the scheme would not be applicable for Mr. James. Benning should have disclosed the details at the time of signing the insurance agreement. It would be possible for Lloyds Underwriters to not support the insurance claim and provide coverage. An important thing to consider here is that Benning’s was not aware of Mr. James’s previous conviction, which could have some effect on the case.